Mr. Justice Bayley and Mr. Justice Abbot were of the same opinion.

Court of Exchequer.-The King v. Ridge. This was a proceeding by extent against John Ridge, Esq. calling upon him to pay the amount, with the interest thereon, of three bills for 1000l. each, drawn by the Earl of Moira, and accepted by him, and made payable at Messrs. Biddulph and Co's. Mr. Dauncey stated the case to the jury. This, he said, was a case, the statement and proof of which would occupy a very short portion of their time. The simple facts were these:-Mr. Austen, a partner in the bankinghouse of Austen and Maunde, in Henrietta-street, Covent-garden, who had been a receiver-general of land and income tax for the county of Oxford, had become insolvent, and was considerably indebted to the Crown. Crown, wishing rather to come upon any property of Mr. Austen than upon that of his sureties, issued an extent, under which an inquisition having been taken, it was ascertained that he had the three bills in question in his possession, and the present proceeding was instituted to compel the defendant to pay their amount, as they were accepted by him. He understood that the ground on which the payment of those bills was intended to be resisted was, that they had come into Mr. Austen's possession by usury. Why this defence had been set up, or how Lord Moira could have been concerned in an usurious transaction, it was not for him (Mr. Dauncey) to say; but certain it

The

was, that such was the defence on which the payment of those bills was to be resisted. It would appear to the satisfaction of the jury, that the bills were drawn and signed by Lord Moira, and accepted by Mr. Ridge; and indeed he thought the jury would require some very strong and positive evidence, before they could believe that a man of Mr. Austen's experience would be so dishonest, and even so rash, as to take more than the legal interest, where he must necessarily be exposed to detection, and to the loss of his money.

John Green, a clerk to Mr. Ridge, proved that the signatures to the three bills were those of Lord Moira and Mr. Ridge. The bills were then put in, and read : they were dated Portsmouth, 12th of April, 1813, and made payable twelve months after date. Here the case for the Crown closed.

Mr. Clarke, on the part of the defendant, addressed the Jury, and observed, that his learned friend (Mr. Dauncey) had anticipated the truth, when he alluded to the defence intended to be set up on the present case. That defence was, that these bills had been obtained by usury. He would show, from incontrovertible evidence, that treble the legal rate of discount had been taken in the first negotiation of them, and if the jury were satisfied of that fact, the learned judge would tell them, that whether this illegal discount had been taken by Mr. Austen or by Mr. Maunde, the effect was the same, and the amount of them could not be recovered in law. He should also observe, that the present process

was

was not really instituted to be nefit the Crown, but in point of fact to serve Mr. Austen. Nothing had been more remote from the intention of Lord Moira than to resist the payment of his debts; and in truth his lordship had made such arrangements for the disposal of his estates as to secure that object nor would any resistance have been made to the present claim, but for the hasty manner in which the demand for payment had been pressed.

He then called Major James, who proved that he was the confidential agent of Lord Moira, and had been in the habit of raising money for his lordship for several years. In the month of April, 1813, in consequence of some instructions from Lord Moira, who was then preparing to go out to his government in India, he went to the bankinghouse of Austen and Maunde, to know whether they could cash some bills for his lordship. Mr. Maunde, who was the only person he saw, said he would try. In a day or two after he went to Austen and Maunde with four bills (out of six, of 1,0001. each,) drawn by Lord Moira, and accepted by Mr. Ridge. Those four bills had been handed to him by Mr. Ridge. He again saw Mr. Maunde, and from him he received 3,4001. for the four, instead of 3,800l. which he should have received, if only the legal discount had been deducted. The three bills (the subject of the action) were then handed to him, and he proved them to be three of the four which he had given to Mr. Maunde.

On his cross examination by

Mr. Dauncey, he said, that Mr. Ridge was the military agent of Lord Moira, and in that capacity he had been accustomed to accept his bills, and that he used also to accept them before he became his military agent. He (Major James) was in the habit of raising money for Lord Moira since the year 1801 or 1802. Of late years his Lordship's credit had sunk considerably in the money market, and bills with only his own signature were not easily negotiated. He admitted, that even with the acceptance of Mr. Ridge, the bills in question were not worth near their nominal value at the time he negotiated them with Mr. Maunde.

Here the defence closed.

A Gentleman at the table then rose and said, "My Lord, I wish to address a few words to your Lordship."

The Judge (Baron Richards). -Who are you, Sir?

66

My Lord, I am the Solicitor of the Earl of Moira."

Baron Richards.-Then, Sir, if you are the Earl Moira's solicitor, you should know your duty better. Sit down.

Mr. Dauncey addressed the Jury in reply to the evidence, and contended that no case of usury had been made out in the defence; on the contrary, from what had appeared, it was evident that Major James had sold the bills to Mr. Maunde. That more than their value was given for them was certain, from the fact of their being unpaid at the present time, though more than two years had elapsed since they became due. Major James had proved beyond a doubt that the

credit of Earl Moira had for a considerable time previously to the issuing of those bills been very much depreciated in the money market; and if ever there was a time when his bills would be of less than their nominal value, it must have been when his lordship was about to leave this country for India. What were the facts? That a few days (five) before Lord Moira sailed from England he drew those bills, in order to raise money. Mr. Ridge, who accepted them, had not at that time his usual credit in the money market. Would it then be believed that any man of common experience would have taken those bills at their nominal value? or could it be credited that any man at all acquainted with the nature of such transactions would have risked his credit and his money in taking more than the legal discount, when he might have done what was usual on such occasious-purchased the bills at what he thought they were worth? The jury should remark, that Major James was not asked whether he considered himself as selling the bills? His learned friend (Mr. Clarke) bad stated, that this proceeding was instituted to benefit Mr. Austen, and not the Crown. He (Mr. Dauncey) denied that to be the case. The Crown might have recovered its debt by proceeding against Mr. Austen's sureties; but it thought that would not be the fairest mode of acting while Mr. Austen had any property of his own. The jury would attach what weight they thought fit to the declaration of his learned friend (Mr. Clarke)-that this

so

claim would not have been resisted, if payment had not been hastily pressed. Surely it could not be thought a hasty pressing for payment, if the amount of bills payable 12 months after date was called for two years after they became due ?

Baron Richards summed up the evidence, and told the Jury that the simple question which they had to decide was, whether those bills had been obtained by usury, or whether the transaction between Major James, on behalf of Lord Moira, was a bona fide sale of them. If they believed the former, they must find a verdict for the defendant; if the latter, they must find for the Crown,

The Jury retired, and after half an hour's deliberation returned a verdict for the Crown.

Court of Chancery, Thursday, July 25.-Ex-parte Heathcott in the Matter of Lacy-Mr. Bell stated, that this was an application to the Court, praying that his lordship would not put the great seal to a patent which Mr. Lacy, of Nottingham, had sought to obtain for making lace by a machine, to be worked by a steam-engine. The ground of objection to the patent was, that Mr. Lacy wanted to keep his specification secret for the space of 15 months, which was contrary to the policy of the law, and a great injustice to the King's subjects in general.

On the part of Mr. Lacy, Sir Samuel Romilly and Mr. Hart urged, that no injustice would be done to the public by granting the patent, and the state would

be

be benefited in a peculiar way. Mr. Lacy had invented a machine for making French lace of the most beautiful texture; and if the benefit of his invention were secured to him, by enabling him to lodge the specification under certain restrictions, this country would be enabled to rival the French in the sale of that article in the continental markets. At present, the French by having the materials and labour at a much cheaper rate, could afford to undersell us considerably in that very important branch of their manufactures; but if this patent were granted, the saving with respect to labour would be more than equal to the difference in price of the materials. This was the principal object for wishing to keep the specification secret; for there was reason to apprehend, that if the particular description of the invention should be enrolled within the usual period, copies thereof would be obtained by foreign agents, and transmitted to foreign countries, the inhabitants of which would have the benefit of making use of the invention before his Majesty's subjects could by law make use of the same; which would not only prevent the patentee from deriving the full advantage which he has reason to expect, but might also tend to diminish the benefit which the lace-manufactures of this country might otherwise derive therefrom. This was the ground upon which the legislature had thought proper to grant an act of parliament (53d Geo. 3. cap. 179.) to Mr. Lee, for securing his invention of preparing hemp and flax. By a proVOL. LVIII.

viso in the letters-patent, which were granted for the term of 14 years, that gentleman was allowed to keep his specification secret for 15 months from the date thereof; and, with a view to secure the benefits of his invention to this country, the act directed, that instead of causing the particular description of the invention to be enrolled according to the said proviso, he should deliver to the Lord Chancellor, within 15 months from the date of the letters-patent, a particular description or specification of, the nature of his invention, and in what manner the same was to be performed, by writing under his hand and seal; which specification, together with an affidavit made before a Master in Chancery, that it fully, completely, and accurately defined and described the whole and every part of such invention and discovery, and the method of using and employing the same for the uses and purposes therein set forth, should be enclosed in a cover under the seal of the Lord Chancellor, and lodged in the office of one of the Masters in Chancery, to

be nominated successively, from time to time, as occasion might require. The second clause of the act declared, that the said packet should not be removed from the custody of the Master in Chancery on any account or pretence whatever, except by order of the Lord Chancellor, who should have power to call for and have the saine whenever there should be occasion to have recourse thereto, either on account of application being made for patents for other discoveries of U inventions,

inventions, which there might be reason to apprehend, might be of a nature similar to the said in vention, or on account of any trial at law respecting the same, or in any other case in which it might be judged by the Lord Chancellor necessary or proper to inspect the same; in all which cases the seal of the said packet might be broken by the Lord Chancellor and after such use should have been made of the said specification as occasion should require, the same should be again sealed up, and deposited with a master in Chancery, as before directed. And by the fifth clause it was enacted, that the said packet, so to be deposited, should be kept and remain sealed and unopened (except as aforesaid) until the expiration of the term of seven years from the passing of the act, at which time the specification should be enrolled in the manner directed by the proviso contained in the letterspatent, there to be and remain public for the benefit of all his Majesty's subjects. These were the particular privileges which the legislature had given to Mr. Lee, for the purpose of securing the benefits of his invention to this country; and as Mr. Lacy had made an affidavit that he intended to apply for a similar act of parliament, the learned Counsel hoped that his Lordship would not withhold the great seal from the patent.

The Lord Chancellor said, that he could not put the great seal to a patent which gave the party fifteen months to make out his specification. In the present reign about 20,000 patents had been

six

granted, and this indulgence was extended only in two or three of them. Where the letters-patent were for an invention to be used in England, Scotland, and Ireland, the usual period for enrolling the specification was months: but where they were confined to England only, three or four months was the given time. Mr. Lee's case was a very peculiar one it was for securing to the state, in a time of war, the benefit of a most important discovery. If Mr. Lacy could make out that the state was to be benefited by his invention in any peculiar way, as in the case of preparing hemp and flax, it might be doubtful whether he might not have a secret specification. His lordship was of opinion, however, that the legislature would pause a long time before they passed such an act in future; and he thought he might venture to say, that if Mr. Lacy were to apply for such an act he would not procure it. The gentleman had said, that if this specification were not kept secret the French might copy it; but his lordship could not establish a new principle merely to prevent the French from smuggling, neither could he put the great seal to a patent without seeing the specification, for it might turn out not to be worth a farthing, and then public genius would be discouraged merely for the benefit of the patentee. Many cases of this nature had occurred. The patent could not pass without the responsibility of the great seal; and if his Lordship could bring himself to pass it, he might be called upon to give an account in par

liament